Revisiting "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team + Phoenix Coyotes hockey

When I first started blogging, I would routinely criticize public funding of sports stadiums and arenas, because generally they are a bad deal for communities, although on the margins it depends on the deal, the type of sport, etc. ("Sports Stadiums Can Be Bad for Cities" and "If You Build It, They Might Not Come: The Risky Economics of Sports Stadiums," The Atlantic).

But it didn't matter, elected officials fall over themselves to give money to teams, as communities get squeezed between Growth Machine advocacy, economics and the way teams are able to mobilize fans to support such agreements, except in rare cases like San Diego, where agreements have to be ratified in public referendums ("San Diego Chargers stadium vote fails," Sports Illustrated).

So I started writing about this more in terms of how to make the best possible agreement in terms of elements of the project and contract that favor urban-community-city-county interests, rather than the interests of the team.

While "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities," published last year, is the most recent iteration, the comment stream is full of additional points, as I've come across additional material, to the point where it's deserving of an updated writeup (which I am putting off).

Tampa Bay and baseball.  But I couldn't help but be struck by this AP report, "Rays say split-season plan with Montreal rejected by MLB."  

The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team is quite successful on the field, having made last year's playoffs.  But they have one of the worst attendance in all of professional baseball, fewer than 10,000 fans per game, ranking 30th--only Miami and Oakland are worse. 

The team petitioned to be able to play half its games in Montreal, once home to the Expos (which moved to DC). Hoping to get more fans through the gates in Montreal.  But MLB said no.  

According to the article, the City of St. Petersburg Florida is working on a stadium improvement proposal. Why? 

If your community is barely supporting your professional baseball team, isn't that a sign that "investing" hundreds of millions of public dollars in a new stadium is wasting money?  From the article:

St. Petersburg mayor Ken Welch feels a new stadium in his city remains a possibility. Governmental officials have been working on a redevelopment plan for the Tropicana Field site. “

We are working with our county partners and city council to put together the best plan possible, which will work in conjunction with my planned evolution of the Tropicana Field master development proposals,” Welch said in a statement. “With this collaborative approach, I am confident we can partner with the Tampa Bay Rays to create a new and iconic full-time home for Major League Baseball in St. Petersburg while also achieving historic equitable economic growth.” 

Sternberg said the team will definitely explore options in the Tampa Bay area.

Why should either the city or the team ownership want to stay in a community that seems to be uninterested, judging by the abysmal attendance, even when the team is very successful on the field?

It's important for teams there to understand why is it that professional baseball, in terms of attendance, is so unsuccessful in both Miami and St. Petersburg? ("Rays, Marlins stars uncertain of reason for low Florida fan attendance," AP).

Lessons for Oakland concerning the Oakland A's baseball team.  And given Oakland's low attendance, maybe it makes sense for the city to not be so willing to pay for a new stadium ("Examining stadium situations for Athletics and Rays; where both clubs stand in pursuit of new ballparks," CBS Sports).  The poorly resourced city isn't opening its coffers.  

To be fair, the proposal mostly calls on the private sector to fund the stadium.  But they are asking for almost $1 billion in local government provided infrastructure, and it will cost even more because of financing.

Glendale Arizona and hockey.  Glendale is "legendary" in that the city has spent a lot on sports subsidization, with not a lot to show for it ("If You Build It, They Might Not Come: The Risky Economics of Sports Stadiums," The Atlantic. "Economic impact of major sports events," 2015).  

The Phoenix Coyotes hockey team has been unsuccessful for a couple of decades-- basically its entire 26 year tenure in Greater Phoenix--and a major drain on the city budget, because of financial guarantees in the original contract.

For a time the team was owned by the NHL after a bankruptcy.  The post-bankruptcy owners have underfunded the team and broken various contract provisions.  

The city, tired of all the losses, and despite "the sunk cost fallacy," finally told the team that they weren't going to renew their lease at the Gila River Arena ("The Arizona Coyotes and Their Long Journey to Nowhere," New York Times).  The lease ends at the end of June, 2022.

Maybe this is a little different than the Tampa Bay story.  Phoenix is a stretch for hockey, whereas baseball shouldn't be a stretch for Florida, even though the Las Vegas Golden Knights, in a city with similar weather conditions, have been wildly successful.  What is it that separates Las Vegas and hockey from Arizona ("Ice Hockey In The Desert? The Vegas Golden Knights' Superb Marketing Strategy," Forbes).  From the article:

How would anyone go about selling ice hockey to desert-bound Las Vegas? No snow, no skating tradition, and it is far away from the Midwest-Canadian roots of the sport.

The Vegas Golden Knights, an NHL expansion franchise, have pulled off a miracle on and off the ice. This team has captivated Las Vegas, and it began with a brilliant marketing plan, put in place by the Golden Knights' GM, George McPhee, and vice president of marketing Kim Frank. The team knew it was in a unique market and did plenty of research before proceeding.

The marketing plan began with a three shift festival and open house for season ticket holders, with plenty to do for kids and a nighttime aspect for adults. They created an arena with Vegas-style entertainment. A castle sits above one section, and the cheers are unique. They embrace fan-created traditions like the "Victory Flamingo," with plastic flamingos thrown on the ice after victories, by selling Victory Flamingo-themed socks and plush animals. The team motto is "Vegas Born," which has become a unifying factor for fans. The average attendance in the first year was over 100% of the capacity of the 17,500-seat T-Mobile Arena, which is located on the Strip, and the Knights are already sold out for next year.

Why is the NHL is still committed to Phoenix?  Glendale is a rare instance where continued public "investment" in a hockey team was finally deemed a bad investment after decades of failure.  But that hasn't carried over to the NHL.

The team isn't successful.  How many indicators of success do you need?  Why stay?  From the NYT article:

Relocation is a notion more than a practical solution. Quebec City and Houston have both been floated before as potential homes for the Coyotes. Both cities have arenas fit for the purpose. In Houston, the Toyota Center is owned by Tilman Fertitta, who also owns the Rockets of the N.B.A. 

“The Coyotes aren’t going anywhere,” Gary Bettman, the commissioner of the N.H.L., said last week after the league’s annual board of governors’ meeting wrapped up in Palm Beach, Fla. “They’re going somewhere else other than Glendale, but they’re not leaving the greater Phoenix area.”